this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
1346 points (97.9% liked)
Technology
59707 readers
5420 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. His normal salary is around 300k a year. This $193 million figure was the presumed valuation of a stock/options package he received ahead of the IPO. It doesn't cost the company anything to pay him in stock, so it doesn't affect the profit/loss calculation.
Gotta love that monopoly money
Surely it costs $193 million to pay him in stock. That stock would otherwise have been sold for that amount to other people, and he's getting it for nothing.
Because you're exchanging stock worth $193 million for an equivalent amount of dollars, there's technically no profit or loss involved in the transaction. In the same manner, when paying stock as a compensation, you secure services valued at $193 million for an amount of shares worth the same: the transaction is entirely equal. So you don't make or lose any money by paying in stock.
Of course, the trick is that the value of the CEO's work for one year can be whatever he says. If your claim is that they could have gotten more value out of the stock had they sold it in the IPO, I think you are absolutely correct in that regard.
My brain despises econ and I always struggle with it. But that first paragraph smells like "MBAs cooked up a justification for why they don't pay taxes that doesn't actually make any sense".
The second bit makes me wonder "why don't we have some authority on evaluating the worth of CEOs?". Insert joke here about that worth being 0. And then I remember that the CEOs are the ones that would have to pay the government to make that rule.
The same argument can be had for paying in cash. Yet I still have to pay tax.
In fact I should get money back, because the services I provide to the company outweigh the cost of my wages (otherwise they wouldn't pay me). I'm making a damn loss over here!
If it doesn't cost anything to company to pay in stocks, why don't they give me like 1m $ value of stock? That would make me very happy and it costs nothing to them anyway
I know you're just being funny, but the idea is that Spez's shares and resulting influence over a publicly traded Reddit will incentivize investors to buy stock, raising the value of the stock for all shareholders. The problem with this idea is that Spez is an idiot who is actively sabotaging Reddit's long term viability.
Yes but where is the $300k coming from if they're losing $90.8m a year? How can they afford to stay in business? Before they went public, who was foolish enough to invest in a company that has never turned a profit? The money doesn't just come out of thin air. Someone has to be giving it to him.
If I was rich and started a company that lost $90.8m a year, I'd shut down after less than a year before I went broke and homeless. How can a company that never turns a profit make enough money to pay any employee, let alone the CEO?
You'd be surprised. The basic strategy of losing money hand over fist for years to grow yourself to as large a user base as possible, before finally aggressively monetizing that user base, is well established in silicon valley. Investors would not even raise an eyebrow at the loss numbers posted by Reddit because of how exceedingly common that is.
And it has worked several times, making some people ridiculously wealthy. Good examples are Amazon, Facebook, and Uber. So usually companies on this level have raised hundreds of millions to sometimes billions of dollars in investment capital, allowing them to operate at these levels of losses for years at a time.
Uber yeah, but the others are probably profitable overall.
So is Uber, since this year. My point is, all of these companies ran hundreds of millions of dollars in the red for years before turning a profit.
Reddit has a lot of users that spend a lot of time there, so it is advertising potential, and a lot of Brands pay for ads on Reddit. Investors hope they will eventually make enough ad revenue to turn a profit.
However Twitter was and is in the same boat, it is a big site with many users, but was never profitable.